Dunlap at risk for fattification

[SLAVE of THE STATE]

http://www.cyclingnews.com/mtb.php?id=riders/2008/interviews/alison_dunlap08

"Dunlap said she tries to squeeze in a daily ride. 'But the ride time
is much less. Most of the time I can justify about two hours and if I
get more, I'm excited. Usually I can justify an hour or an hour and a
half.'

Laughing at herself, Dunlap chuckled, 'I have the total master's
syndrome now. As soon as I get on the bike, it's all about going hard.
Now it's all about burning calories. If I have time to ride my bike, I
don't want to waste it on a recovery day. So I'm always riding hard.'

'I used to make fun of those riders when I trained, but now I'm one of
them, so it's pretty ironic. But I'm not racing so it doesn't matter.
I ride to stay fit. I still love to eat. If I didn't ride my bike, I'd
be 180 pounds.'"

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Thu, 6 Mar 2008 15:37:38 -0800 (PST), SLAVE of THE STATE
> wrote:

>http://www.cyclingnews.com/mtb.php?id=riders/2008/interviews/alison_dunlap08
>
>"Dunlap said she tries to squeeze in a daily ride. 'But the ride time
>is much less. Most of the time I can justify about two hours and if I
>get more, I'm excited. Usually I can justify an hour or an hour and a
>half.'
>
>Laughing at herself, Dunlap chuckled, 'I have the total master's
>syndrome now. As soon as I get on the bike, it's all about going hard.
>Now it's all about burning calories. If I have time to ride my bike, I
>don't want to waste it on a recovery day. So I'm always riding hard.'
>
>'I used to make fun of those riders when I trained, but now I'm one of
>them, so it's pretty ironic. But I'm not racing so it doesn't matter.
>I ride to stay fit. I still love to eat. If I didn't ride my bike, I'd
>be 180 pounds.'"

She rocks.

[Tom Kunich]

"John Forrest Tomlinson" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 6 Mar 2008 15:37:38 -0800 (PST), SLAVE of THE STATE
> > wrote:
>
>>http://www.cyclingnews.com/mtb.php?id=riders/2008/interviews/alison_dunlap08
>>
>>"Dunlap said she tries to squeeze in a daily ride. 'But the ride time
>>is much less. Most of the time I can justify about two hours and if I
>>get more, I'm excited. Usually I can justify an hour or an hour and a
>>half.'
>>
>>Laughing at herself, Dunlap chuckled, 'I have the total master's
>>syndrome now. As soon as I get on the bike, it's all about going hard.
>>Now it's all about burning calories. If I have time to ride my bike, I
>>don't want to waste it on a recovery day. So I'm always riding hard.'
>>
>>'I used to make fun of those riders when I trained, but now I'm one of
>>them, so it's pretty ironic. But I'm not racing so it doesn't matter.
>>I ride to stay fit. I still love to eat. If I didn't ride my bike, I'd
>>be 180 pounds.'"
>
> She rocks.

The fact is that you burn about the same number of calories fast or
moderate. When I was racing I was so far above my present caliber that I
could ride what I consider a fast ride now and my heart rate would still be
in zone 2.

[[email protected]]

On Mar 6, 8:14 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:

> The fact is that you burn about the same number of calories fast or
> moderate. When I was racing I was so far above my present caliber that I
> could ride what I consider a fast ride now and my heart rate would still be
> in zone 2.

Tom Kunich wrote:

> fact

That word. You keep using that word. I do not
think it means what you think it means.

Ben

[[email protected]]

On Mar 7, 4:14*am, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> "John Forrest Tomlinson" > wrote in messagenews:ng51t3l6mvl3joef6o5aelcsp29j4geks8@4ax .com...
>
>
>
> > On Thu, 6 Mar 2008 15:37:38 -0800 (PST), SLAVE of THE STATE
> > > wrote:
>
> >>http://www.cyclingnews.com/mtb.php?id=riders/2008/interviews/alison_d....
>
> >>"Dunlap said she tries to squeeze in a daily ride. 'But the ride time
> >>is much less. Most of the time I can justify about two hours and if I
> >>get more, I'm excited. Usually I can justify an hour or an hour and a
> >>half.'
>
> >>Laughing at herself, Dunlap chuckled, 'I have the total master's
> >>syndrome now. As soon as I get on the bike, it's all about going hard.
> >>Now it's all about burning calories. If I have time to ride my bike, I
> >>don't want to waste it on a recovery day. So I'm always riding hard.'
>
> >>'I used to make fun of those riders when I trained, but now I'm one of
> >>them, so it's pretty ironic. But I'm not racing so it doesn't matter.
> >>I ride to stay fit. I still love to eat. If I didn't ride my bike, I'd
> >>be 180 pounds.'"
>
> > She rocks.
>
> The fact is that you burn about the same number of calories fast or
> moderate. When I was racing I was so far above my present caliber that I
> could ride what I consider a fast ride now and my heart rate would still be
> in zone 2.

It doesn't get any easier, you just go faster.

If I were to go for a spin with Magnus Bäckstedt, we would both burn
the same number of calories. He'd just be at his active recovery pace,
while I'd be blowing chunks.

Joseph

[Donald Munro]

wrote:
> He'd just be at his active recovery pace, while I'd be blowing chunks.

Presumably chunks of pemmican. Hopefully not chunks of andouillette.

[Jeff Jones]

On Mar 7, 9:17 am, "
> wrote:

> If I were to go for a spin with Magnus Bäckstedt, we would both burn
> the same number of calories. He'd just be at his active recovery pace,
> while I'd be blowing chunks.
>
Only if you're both clones riding identical bikes...

Basically, to burn more calories you have to ride at a higher power
output. The more power you put out, the more you burn per minute *and*
per kilometre, 'cos power doesn't scale linearly with speed.

Jeff

[Ken Prager]

In article
>,
" > wrote:

> On Mar 6, 8:14 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
> > The fact is that you burn about the same number of calories fast or
> > moderate. When I was racing I was so far above my present caliber that I
> > could ride what I consider a fast ride now and my heart rate would still be
> > in zone 2.
>
> Tom Kunich wrote:
>
> > fact
>
> That word. You keep using that word. I do not
> think it means what you think it means.

So does Dwight Schrute...

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwight_Schrute>

[[email protected]]

On Mar 7, 2:08*pm, Jeff Jones > wrote:
> On Mar 7, 9:17 am, "
>
> > wrote:
> > If I were to go for a spin with Magnus Bäckstedt, we would both burn
> > the same number of calories. He'd just be at his active recovery pace,
> > while I'd be blowing chunks.
>
> Only if you're both clones riding identical bikes...
>
> Basically, to burn more calories you have to ride at a higher power
> output. The more power you put out, the more you burn per minute *and*
> per kilometre, 'cos power doesn't scale linearly with speed.
>
> Jeff

I chose him because we are of similar dimensions. That didn't come out
right, but you know what I mean.

Riding together, we would be putting out essentially the same power at
any given time. It would just be more taxing for me.

However, in addition to massively more fitness, he probably has a
higher pedalling efficency as well, so maybe he can get the same power
to the pedals without wasting fuel. In that case he would burn fewer
calories than I. But only a tiny number. Not enough to make the
difference between somebody getting fat or not.

Joseph

[Jeff Jones]

On Mar 7, 1:40 pm, "
> wrote:
> On Mar 7, 2:08 pm, Jeff Jones > wrote:
>
> > On Mar 7, 9:17 am, "
>
> > > wrote:
> > > If I were to go for a spin with Magnus Bäckstedt, we would both burn
> > > the same number of calories. He'd just be at his active recovery pace,
> > > while I'd be blowing chunks.
>
> > Only if you're both clones riding identical bikes...
>
> > Basically, to burn more calories you have to ride at a higher power
> > output. The more power you put out, the more you burn per minute *and*
> > per kilometre, 'cos power doesn't scale linearly with speed.
>
> > Jeff
>
> I chose him because we are of similar dimensions. That didn't come out
> right, but you know what I mean.
>
I do - just being pedantic :-)

> Riding together, we would be putting out essentially the same power at
> any given time. It would just be more taxing for me.
>
> However, in addition to massively more fitness, he probably has a
> higher pedalling efficency as well, so maybe he can get the same power
> to the pedals without wasting fuel. In that case he would burn fewer
> calories than I. But only a tiny number. Not enough to make the
> difference between somebody getting fat or not.
>
True, all other things considered.

The rbr fun - naturally - is looking at what happens to pros who stop
racing.

Jeff

[Tom Kunich]

> wrote in message
...
> On Mar 6, 8:14 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
>> The fact is that you burn about the same number of calories fast or
>> moderate. When I was racing I was so far above my present caliber that I
>> could ride what I consider a fast ride now and my heart rate would still
>> be
>> in zone 2.
>
> Tom Kunich wrote:
>
>> fact
>
> That word. You keep using that word. I do not
> think it means what you think it means.

Ben, what is the formula for work?

[SLAVE of THE STATE]

On Mar 7, 11:49*am, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > On Mar 6, 8:14 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
> >> The fact is that you burn about the same number of calories fast or
> >> moderate. When I was racing I was so far above my present caliber that I
> >> could ride what I consider a fast ride now and my heart rate would still
> >> be
> >> in zone 2.
>
> > Tom Kunich wrote:
>
> >> fact
>
> > That word. *You keep using that word. *I do not
> > think it means what you think it means.
>
> Ben, what is the formula for work?

rcRide = gwWork

[Fred Fredburger[_3_]]

Tom Kunich wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Mar 6, 8:14 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>>
>>> The fact is that you burn about the same number of calories fast or
>>> moderate. When I was racing I was so far above my present caliber that I
>>> could ride what I consider a fast ride now and my heart rate would
>>> still be
>>> in zone 2.
>>
>> Tom Kunich wrote:
>>
>>> fact
>>
>> That word. You keep using that word. I do not
>> think it means what you think it means.
>
> Ben, what is the formula for work?
>

The meaning of "you burn about the same number of calories fast or
moderate" is ambiguous. Is that per mile or per hour? In the article,
Dunlap is pretty clearly referring to calories per minute. I think you
meant per mile.

[Fred Fredburger[_3_]]

Donald Munro wrote:
> wrote:
>> He'd just be at his active recovery pace, while I'd be blowing chunks.
>
> Presumably chunks of pemmican. Hopefully not chunks of andouillette.

My dog is named "Chunks".

[SLAVE of THE STATE]

On Mar 7, 4:36*pm, Fred Fredburger
> wrote:
> Donald Munro wrote:
> > wrote:
> >> He'd just be at his active recovery pace, while I'd be blowing chunks.
>
> > Presumably chunks of pemmican. Hopefully not chunks of andouillette.
>
> My dog is named "Chunks".

A friend of mine had a Pit Bull named "Lug Nuts."

Lug nuts have the benefit of being free of aphlatoxins, although I
find them hard to chew, and don't rcare for the flavor.

[SLAVE of THE STATE]

On Mar 7, 4:35*pm, Fred Fredburger
> wrote:
> Tom Kunich wrote:
> > > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Mar 6, 8:14 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
> >>> The fact is that you burn about the same number of calories fast or
> >>> moderate. When I was racing I was so far above my present caliber that I
> >>> could ride what I consider a fast ride now and my heart rate would
> >>> still be
> >>> in zone 2.
>
> >> Tom Kunich wrote:
>
> >>> fact
>
> >> That word. *You keep using that word. *I do not
> >> think it means what you think it means.
>
> > Ben, what is the formula for work?

rcRide = gwWork

> The meaning of "you burn about the same number of calories fast or
> moderate" is ambiguous.

Almost everything holds a measure of uncertainty, which is anutter way
of sayin ambiguous.

However, my equation was not ambiguous. It is a stone cold fact and a
stupid one at that.



Sorry for interrupting. Carry on.

[Fred Fredburger[_3_]]

SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:

> Sorry for interrupting. Carry on.

It's what I do.

[[email protected]]

On Mar 7, 5:35 pm, Fred Fredburger
> wrote:
> Tom Kunich wrote:
> > > wrote in message
> >> On Mar 6, 8:14 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
> >>> The fact is that you burn about the same number of calories fast or
> >>> moderate. When I was racing I was so far above my present caliber that I
> >>> could ride what I consider a fast ride now and my heart rate would
> >>> still be
> >>> in zone 2.
>
> >> Tom Kunich wrote:
>
> >>> fact
>
> >> That word. You keep using that word. I do not
> >> think it means what you think it means.
>
> > Ben, what is the formula for work?
>
> The meaning of "you burn about the same number of calories fast or
> moderate" is ambiguous. Is that per mile or per hour? In the article,
> Dunlap is pretty clearly referring to calories per minute. I think you
> meant per mile.

What Tom wrote, even if he meant per mile, is still wrong.
As Jeff Jones pointed out, power goes up faster than linear
with speed, because of air drag. A rider going twice as fast
might be riding at about 4-6 times the power, depending on
the average grade. So even if he finishes in half the time,
he still burned 2-3 times as much energy in total.

Basically, you need to start from the premise "Tom is wrong,"
and then work out the details. It's science in action.

Ben

[Howard Kveck]

In article >,
" > wrote:

> Basically, you need to start from the premise "Tom is wrong,"
> and then work out the details. It's science in action.

That isn't so much a "premise" as a "fact."

--
tanx,
Howard

Whatever happened to
Leon Trotsky?
He got an icepick
That made his ears burn.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

[nobody]

On Fri, 7 Mar 2008 05:08:13 -0800 (PST), Jeff Jones
> wrote:

>On Mar 7, 9:17 am, "
> wrote:
>
>> If I were to go for a spin with Magnus Bäckstedt, we would both burn
>> the same number of calories. He'd just be at his active recovery pace,
>> while I'd be blowing chunks.
>>
>Only if you're both clones riding identical bikes...
>
>Basically, to burn more calories you have to ride at a higher power
>output. The more power you put out, the more you burn per minute *and*
>per kilometre, 'cos power doesn't scale linearly with speed.
>
>Jeff

On a related note.

Rider x weighs 225lbs. He is dragging that up hills at a certain rate.
Rider x loses 40lbs in about 8months, but doesn't starve, keeps his
protein consumption up. Now he is only dragging 180lbs up hills.

Rider x discovers in a few weeks he is riding slower, even if 0.5mph,
he fears he is losing conditioning, though he expected to be riding
faster, because of being lighter. He even got a lighter bike, so now
he is 50lbs lighter total. (225+25), vs (180+18).

Reasons?
1. he lost muscle mass?
2. his progressive resistance has gotten progressively lighter?
3. he is older?
4. bodyweight is not that important on the flats?
5. he is in the wrong gear?
6. got a new lighter bike. his new speedometer is off?
7. lazyness?
8. all of the above?

Riding does feel better, easier, partly because of the loss of
aerobelly and can get better position. But it's daunting as to why
he's not riding much faster.

At least he's not gaining weight. :)

I suspect more than a few people experience this kind of thing.

[Bill C]

On Mar 8, 1:37*am, Howard Kveck > wrote:
> In article >,
>
> " > wrote:
> > Basically, you need to start from the premise "Tom is wrong,"
> > and then work out the details. *It's science in action.
>
> * *That isn't so much a "premise" as a "fact."
>
> --
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * tanx,
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *Howard
>
> * * * * * * * * * * * * Whatever happened to
> * * * * * * * * * * * * Leon Trotsky?
> * * * * * * * * * * * * He got an icepick
> * * * * * * * * * * * * That made his ears burn.
>
> * * * * * * * * * * *remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Maybe on balance, but Tom ALWAYS has kernels of evidence and specific
evidence to supprt most of his points. You might not agree, but he has
backing for his arguments. It's like they say about "expert" witnesses
in a court case. You can find one to testify for , or against anything
with "science" as evidence.
Tom's "style" blurs his argument most of the time though. Kinda tough
for you or anyone else to be open to listening when you're being
called a combination of Benedict Arnold, Jane Fonda, Tokyo Rose,
Dahlmer, Manson, Pol Pot, etc...
"Hey you stinking, unwashed, baby killing, commie scumbag..." just
wasn't taught as a good approach in any debating class that I or my
kids have had, or done...
Bill C

[[email protected]]

On Mar 8, 12:43*pm, > wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Mar 2008 05:08:13 -0800 (PST), Jeff Jones
>
> > wrote:
> >On Mar 7, 9:17 am, "
> > wrote:
>
> >> If I were to go for a spin with Magnus Bäckstedt, we would both burn
> >> the same number of calories. He'd just be at his active recovery pace,
> >> while I'd be blowing chunks.
>
> >Only if you're both clones riding identical bikes...
>
> >Basically, to burn more calories you have to ride at a higher power
> >output. The more power you put out, the more you burn per minute *and*
> >per kilometre, 'cos power doesn't scale linearly with speed.
>
> >Jeff
>
> On a related note.
>
> Rider x weighs 225lbs. He is dragging that up hills at a certain rate.
> Rider x loses 40lbs in about 8months, but doesn't starve, keeps his
> protein consumption up. Now he is only dragging 180lbs up hills.
>
> Rider x discovers in a few weeks he is riding slower, even if 0.5mph,
> he fears he is losing conditioning, though he expected to be riding
> faster, because of being lighter. He even got a lighter bike, so now
> he is 50lbs lighter total. (225+25), vs (180+18).
>
> Reasons?
> 1. he lost muscle mass?
> 2. his progressive resistance has gotten progressively lighter?
> 3. he is older?
> 4. bodyweight is not that important on the flats?
> 5. he is in the wrong gear?
> 6. got a new lighter bike. his new speedometer is off?
> 7. lazyness?
> 8. all of the above?
>
> Riding does feel better, easier, partly because of the loss of
> aerobelly and can get better position. But it's daunting as to why
> he's not riding much faster.
>
> At least he's not gaining weight. :)
>
> I suspect more than a few people experience this kind of thing.

I'd say #4 and a little bit of #1. But even for #4, 50 lbs is a BIG
difference. I suspect any slowness is temporary and will adjust once
the body is done with the stress of losing lots of weight.

When your body is busy eating itself, it doesn't have that much to
spare to build or maintain fitness I imagine.

Find some hills. On flat ground the difference between 19 mph and 18.5
mph for 250lb of rider and bike a 180lb of rider and bike is 200W vs
175W. That's a 12% loss of power for the now lighter rider. That's not
that big, considering how exausting losing 45lb is.

Tilt the road up to 5% grade, and the lighter yet weaker rider is
going 1.5mph faster. Once the weight loss stabilizes and the fitness
returns, the rider is 2mph faster.

Joseph

[Howard Kveck]

In article >,
Bill C > wrote:

> On Mar 8, 1:37?am, Howard Kveck > wrote:
> > In article
> > >,
> >
> > " > wrote:
> > > Basically, you need to start from the premise "Tom is wrong,"
> > > and then work out the details. ?It's science in action.
> >
> > That isn't so much a "premise" as a "fact."

> Maybe on balance, but Tom ALWAYS has kernels of evidence and specific
> evidence to supprt most of his points. You might not agree, but he has
> backing for his arguments. It's like they say about "expert" witnesses
> in a court case. You can find one to testify for , or against anything
> with "science" as evidence.

Mmm, I don't agree with that. He may have some kernel of something that makes him
believe that he's right but pretty frequently, there is no evidence offered, just a
barrage of insults toward anyone who doesn't agree with him. That's why Ben wrote
what he did. Honestly, it seems to me that the overwhelming majority of the time,
Tom's righteous belief in his own superiority is all the evidence he needs to blast
anyone.

> Tom's "style" blurs his argument most of the time though. Kinda tough
> for you or anyone else to be open to listening when you're being
> called a combination of Benedict Arnold, Jane Fonda, Tokyo Rose,
> Dahlmer, Manson, Pol Pot, etc...
> "Hey you stinking, unwashed, baby killing, commie scumbag..." just
> wasn't taught as a good approach in any debating class that I or my
> kids have had, or done...

That particular approach accounts for a large part of the reaction Tom gets around
here. Not much anyone can do about it - you get that nomatter how you phrase your
responses to him. You get blasted just as much when you go with a measured, calm
approach as you do if you just call him a jackass. The latter gets to the end faster.

--
tanx,
Howard

Whatever happened to
Leon Trotsky?
He got an icepick
That made his ears burn.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

[nobody]

On Sat, 8 Mar 2008 06:54:15 -0800 (PST),
" > wrote:

>> Reasons?
>> 1. he lost muscle mass?
>> 2. his progressive resistance has gotten progressively lighter?
>> 3. he is older?
>> 4. bodyweight is not that important on the flats?
>> 5. he is in the wrong gear?
>> 6. got a new lighter bike. his new speedometer is off?
>> 7. lazyness?
>> 8. all of the above?
>>
>> Riding does feel better, easier, partly because of the loss of
>> aerobelly and can get better position. But it's daunting as to why
>> he's not riding much faster.
>>
>> At least he's not gaining weight. :)
>>
>> I suspect more than a few people experience this kind of thing.
>
>I'd say #4 and a little bit of #1. But even for #4, 50 lbs is a BIG
>difference. I suspect any slowness is temporary and will adjust once
>the body is done with the stress of losing lots of weight.
>
>When your body is busy eating itself, it doesn't have that much to
>spare to build or maintain fitness I imagine.
>
>Find some hills. On flat ground the difference between 19 mph and 18.5
>mph for 250lb of rider and bike a 180lb of rider and bike is 200W vs
>175W. That's a 12% loss of power for the now lighter rider. That's not
>that big, considering how exausting losing 45lb is.
>
>Tilt the road up to 5% grade, and the lighter yet weaker rider is
>going 1.5mph faster. Once the weight loss stabilizes and the fitness
>returns, the rider is 2mph faster.
>
>Joseph

I was thinking about another factor - drive and motivation. When the
heavier rider is striving to lose the weight there's a potential to
crank it out of frustration and goal seeking.

The lighter bodied rider is now at goal, hasn't picked a new goal, and
isn't as 'driven', so they back off, unconsciously.

The thing about cycling is that there are a multitude of factors that
conspire to make one slower and only a narrow path towards increasing
speed. That makes it fun and frustrating at the same time. So many
things to tune, so many things with contra-intuitive effects. You try
harder you get slower because you fail to relax, expend too much
energy in the first split and sag at the end, ad nauseum. :)

In my case, one thing I discovered is that my bike was -very- out of
tune. I took it in for a tire change (an 1/8th inch hole through the
tread and tube) and the wrench, a friend, who studied in Europe was
remarking he had not seen a new bike as out of tune as this one. The
crew that set it up where I bought it must have been out drinking all
night.

Even the plastic spoke/gear protector in the back was installed wrong
so it was oscillating, and both wheels were out of true, and the chain
was rubbing a nice groove in the front deraileur. (smacks forehead)

Oddly, being full Ultegra, the bike still felt fairly smooth to me.
I'm excited to see how it will ride today.

Oh, he also said I had under-inflated the tires. I was running 23cm
racing tires at 90psi and he recommended 110.

Thanks for the comments.

[Kyle Legate]

Nobody wrote:
>
> Even the plastic spoke/gear protector in the back was installed wrong
> so it was oscillating,
>

Nice troll.

[nobody]

On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 16:29:48 +0100, Kyle Legate >
wrote:

>Nobody wrote:
>>
>> Even the plastic spoke/gear protector in the back was installed wrong
>> so it was oscillating,
>>
>
>Nice troll.

Not at all. The center of the plastic disc was off center by one inch
on the hub in back. I've never looked at it closely, so I don't know
if the center hole was larger than the diameter of the hub or what.

Big Wheel bikes, call and ask for Scott and he'll verify it.

[Kyle Legate]

Nobody wrote:
> On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 16:29:48 +0100, Kyle Legate >
> wrote:
>
>> Nobody wrote:
>>> Even the plastic spoke/gear protector in the back was installed wrong
>>> so it was oscillating,
>>>
>> Nice troll.
>
> Not at all. The center of the plastic disc was off center by one inch
> on the hub in back. I've never looked at it closely, so I don't know
> if the center hole was larger than the diameter of the hub or what.
>
> Big Wheel bikes, call and ask for Scott and he'll verify it.
>
>
Let me get this right. You have a road bike, equipped with Ultegra, and
you have a pie plate on the back wheel?
Pie plates are for cheap utility bikes made in China, not for
performance road bikes. Unless your mechanic doesn't know how to set the
bounds on a rear derailleur (in which case it's time to find a new
mechanic) it serves no purpose whatsoever. Tear it off.

[[email protected]]

On Mar 8, 7:16*am, Bill C > wrote:
> On Mar 8, 1:37*am, Howard Kveck > wrote:
>
> > " > wrote:
> > > Basically, you need to start from the premise "Tom is wrong,"
> > > and then work out the details. *It's science in action.
>
> > * *That isn't so much a "premise" as a "fact."
>
> Maybe on balance, but Tom ALWAYS has kernels of evidence and specific
> evidence to supprt most of his points. You might not agree, but he has
> backing for his arguments. It's like they say about "expert" witnesses
> in a court case. You can find one to testify for , or against anything
> with "science" as evidence.
> *Tom's "style" blurs his argument most of the time though. Kinda tough
> for you or anyone else to be open to listening when you're being
> called a combination of Benedict Arnold, Jane Fonda, Tokyo Rose,
> Dahlmer, Manson, Pol Pot, etc...
> *"Hey you stinking, unwashed, baby killing, commie scumbag..." just
> wasn't taught as a good approach in any debating class that I or my
> kids have had, or done...

My statement wasn't about politics, though. It was
about numbers arguments. Whenever Tom makes
a quantitative statement, whether it's about 12 cogs,
sprinting speed, fusion power, the rate of descent
of an airplane, or burning calories for riding fast
vs. riding slow, it winds up being wrong. Then when
he's called on it, he resorts to bluff and asking you
to do his homework for him, like "What is the equation
for work?" I'm not mad about this. I'm just pointing
out a tendency. I don't think Tom's dumb or
ignorant - rather, I think he lacks self-critical capacity,
so that he says this stuff without thinking enough about
whether the numbers make sense.

This does make me worry occasionally about
the equipment he designs, but I'm just going to
my see-no-evil hands position and assume he
behaves differently while collaborating with other
people at work.

Ben

[Bill C]

On Mar 10, 4:01*am, " >
wrote:

>
> My statement wasn't about politics, though. *It was
> about numbers arguments. *Whenever Tom makes
> a quantitative statement, whether it's about 12 cogs,
> sprinting speed, fusion power, the rate of descent
> of an airplane, or burning calories for riding fast
> vs. riding slow, it winds up being wrong. *Then when
> he's called on it, he resorts to bluff and asking you
> to do his homework for him, like "What is the equation
> for work?" *I'm not mad about this. *I'm just pointing
> out a tendency. *I don't think Tom's dumb or
> ignorant - rather, I think he lacks self-critical capacity,
> so that he says this stuff without thinking enough about
> whether the numbers make sense.
>
> This does make me worry occasionally about
> the equipment he designs, but I'm just going to
> my see-no-evil hands position and assume he
> behaves differently while collaborating with other
> people at work.
>
> Ben- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -


I see where Tom was going, and this is what you have to watch for in
Tom's arguments. The point he is hanging this on is that a fit,
trained, riders body will work at a lower exertion level, and lower
heart rate to achieve the same speed as a fattie. Objectively you can
apply the formula for moving x at speed y and calculate the energy
needed, but that doesn't take into consideration the efficiency of the
engine. I don't think it's a huge difference in this case, but if it's
one calorie/day then Tom will focus on that. I've got a kid who used
to do that too so maybe I''m used to it. This dawned on me with him
during the thread about shooting and ballistics. He hung his hat on
the worst case scenario, and it never even occurred to me to wrap
include that under "shooting" because noone even vaguely responsible
would do it, and it would get you kicked out of any reputable range,
but he was totally right in that scenario.
Bill C

[Fred Fredburger[_3_]]

Bill C wrote:

> Maybe on balance, but Tom ALWAYS has kernels of evidence and specific
> evidence to supprt most of his points.

Not about Tom, per se, but:

"Kernels of evidence" doesn't cut it. I've known medically certified
mentally ill people who ALWAYS had kernels of evidence to support their
delusions. It's what makes them difficult to deal with.

It is no trick at all to drum up "evidence" in support of anything at
all. Just ignore any contradictory evidence and you're there.

[SLAVE of THE STATE]

On Mar 10, 7:20*am, Fred Fredburger
> wrote:
> Bill C wrote:
> > Maybe on balance, but Tom ALWAYS has kernels of evidence and specific
> > evidence to supprt most of his points.
>
> Not about Tom, per se, but:
>
> "Kernels of evidence" doesn't cut it. I've known medically certified
> mentally ill people who ALWAYS had kernels of evidence to support their
> delusions. It's what makes them difficult to deal with.
>
> It is no trick at all to drum up "evidence" in support of anything at
> all. Just ignore any contradictory evidence and you're there.

Aside from the particulars of this thread (and other rbr threads,
which exist in another space-time dimension), "Kernals" is the norm
for people on Earth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bounded_rationality

Information (processed data) is expensive. So expensive in fact that
the way things work for humans is based more on very sparse
information (data) and an evolutional sorting of what works
(algorithmic/heuristic). The evolutional method has a lower cost --
bad news for the hyperrationalists/objectivists. And bad news for
those who view themselves as more than a creature who largely follows
a program.

The call for better and timely data would seem to be a natural impulse
for a partly rational creature (a human). It is also most often
nothing more than an unrealizable pipe dream.

People just don't realize the genius contained within the walls of
Schwartzsoft. Get with the program. Act natural.

[Ryan Cousineau]

In article >,
Kyle Legate > wrote:

> Nobody wrote:
> > On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 16:29:48 +0100, Kyle Legate >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Nobody wrote:
> >>> Even the plastic spoke/gear protector in the back was installed wrong
> >>> so it was oscillating,
> >>>
> >> Nice troll.
> >
> > Not at all. The center of the plastic disc was off center by one inch
> > on the hub in back. I've never looked at it closely, so I don't know
> > if the center hole was larger than the diameter of the hub or what.
> >
> > Big Wheel bikes, call and ask for Scott and he'll verify it.
> >
> >
> Let me get this right. You have a road bike, equipped with Ultegra, and
> you have a pie plate on the back wheel?
> Pie plates are for cheap utility bikes made in China, not for
> performance road bikes. Unless your mechanic doesn't know how to set the
> bounds on a rear derailleur (in which case it's time to find a new
> mechanic) it serves no purpose whatsoever. Tear it off.

Are you trolling? Like, for serious?

--
Ryan Cousineau http://www.wiredcola.com/
"In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls."
"In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."

[nobody]

On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 04:51:45 GMT, Ryan Cousineau >
wrote:

>In article >,
> Kyle Legate > wrote:
>
>> Nobody wrote:
>> > On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 16:29:48 +0100, Kyle Legate >
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> Nobody wrote:
>> >>> Even the plastic spoke/gear protector in the back was installed wrong
>> >>> so it was oscillating,
>> >>>
>> >> Nice troll.
>> >
>> > Not at all. The center of the plastic disc was off center by one inch
>> > on the hub in back. I've never looked at it closely, so I don't know
>> > if the center hole was larger than the diameter of the hub or what.
>> >
>> > Big Wheel bikes, call and ask for Scott and he'll verify it.
>> >
>> >
>> Let me get this right. You have a road bike, equipped with Ultegra, and
>> you have a pie plate on the back wheel?
>> Pie plates are for cheap utility bikes made in China, not for
>> performance road bikes. Unless your mechanic doesn't know how to set the
>> bounds on a rear derailleur (in which case it's time to find a new
>> mechanic) it serves no purpose whatsoever. Tear it off.
>
>Are you trolling? Like, for serious?

Huh? Now I'm confused. Yeah it does have the plastic pie plate. I'll
ask the wrench who is supposed to be one of the two best in town. It's
full Ultegra, even. One of the left over 5.2s before they redesigned
the Madone in '08. Some of the 5.2s have a 105 set, but this one does
not. It says 'Flight Deck' on the shifters. Not sure what the number
is. Not sure if it's the ST-5600 or the St-6600. Anyone know? (looking
at the downloaded .pdf). The shop didn't even give me a manual.

I had an Al with carbon forks for four years, finally decided to go
carbon as a present to myself. I did take off the spoke reflector
dealies, though. :)

[nobody]

On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 02:18:54 -0400, > wrote:
>Not sure what the number
>is. Not sure if it's the ST-5600 or the St-6600. Anyone know? (looking
>at the downloaded .pdf). The shop didn't even give me a manual.

Nevermind, the 5600 is the 105, gotta be the ST-6600. Duh.

[Ryan Cousineau]

In article >,
> wrote:

> On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 04:51:45 GMT, Ryan Cousineau >
> wrote:
>
> >In article >,
> > Kyle Legate > wrote:
> >
> >> Nobody wrote:
> >> > On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 16:29:48 +0100, Kyle Legate >
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Nobody wrote:
> >> >>> Even the plastic spoke/gear protector in the back was installed wrong
> >> >>> so it was oscillating,
> >> >>>
> >> >> Nice troll.
> >> >
> >> > Not at all. The center of the plastic disc was off center by one inch
> >> > on the hub in back. I've never looked at it closely, so I don't know
> >> > if the center hole was larger than the diameter of the hub or what.
> >> >
> >> > Big Wheel bikes, call and ask for Scott and he'll verify it.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> Let me get this right. You have a road bike, equipped with Ultegra, and
> >> you have a pie plate on the back wheel?
> >> Pie plates are for cheap utility bikes made in China, not for
> >> performance road bikes. Unless your mechanic doesn't know how to set the
> >> bounds on a rear derailleur (in which case it's time to find a new
> >> mechanic) it serves no purpose whatsoever. Tear it off.
> >
> >Are you trolling? Like, for serious?
>
> Huh? Now I'm confused. Yeah it does have the plastic pie plate. I'll
> ask the wrench who is supposed to be one of the two best in town. It's
> full Ultegra, even. One of the left over 5.2s before they redesigned
> the Madone in '08. Some of the 5.2s have a 105 set, but this one does
> not. It says 'Flight Deck' on the shifters. Not sure what the number
> is. Not sure if it's the ST-5600 or the St-6600. Anyone know? (looking
> at the downloaded .pdf). The shop didn't even give me a manual.
>
> I had an Al with carbon forks for four years, finally decided to go
> carbon as a present to myself. I did take off the spoke reflector
> dealies, though. :)

I'm fairly agnostic on the subject of pie plates, but I have certainly
seen classy high-end bikes equipped with (these days) discreet black
ones.

I agree with the theory that a properly set-up bike doesn't need one,
but I deeply regret not having one on my road bike last year after my
own mechanical folly dropped my rear der into the rear wheel.

--
Ryan Cousineau http://www.wiredcola.com/
"In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls."
"In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."

[Donald Munro]

Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> I agree with the theory that a properly set-up bike doesn't need one, but
> I deeply regret not having one on my road bike last year after my own
> mechanical folly dropped my rear der into the rear wheel.

That'll teach you setting up rear derailleurs and drinking belgian brews
aren't compatible.

[Kyle Legate]

Ryan Cousineau wrote:
>
>> Let me get this right. You have a road bike, equipped with Ultegra, and
>> you have a pie plate on the back wheel?
>> Pie plates are for cheap utility bikes made in China, not for
>> performance road bikes. Unless your mechanic doesn't know how to set the
>> bounds on a rear derailleur (in which case it's time to find a new
>> mechanic) it serves no purpose whatsoever. Tear it off.
>
> Are you trolling? Like, for serious?
>
Neither Nashbar nor Colorado Cyclist doesn't appear to even sell them on
their sites. That's how necessary they are.

[Ryan Cousineau]

In article >,
Donald Munro > wrote:

> Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> > I agree with the theory that a properly set-up bike doesn't need one, but
> > I deeply regret not having one on my road bike last year after my own
> > mechanical folly dropped my rear der into the rear wheel.
>
> That'll teach you setting up rear derailleurs and drinking belgian brews
> aren't compatible.

Too much, or not enough?

http://xkcd.com/323/

--
Ryan Cousineau http://www.wiredcola.com/
"In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls."
"In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."

[Donald Munro]

Donald Munro wrote:
>> That'll teach you setting up rear derailleurs and drinking belgian brews
>> aren't compatible.

Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> Too much, or not enough?

Its all the same.
Isn't that a lyric from a nineties band - soundgarden or soul asylum
perhaps.

> http://xkcd.com/323/

Don't try that experiment with your LBS mechanic.

(Life must be like one long hangover for Windoze users, what with blue
screens and service packs)

[[email protected]]

> Maybe on balance, but Tom ALWAYS has kernels of evidence

When I eat corn the next day I too have kernels of evidence.

[Howard Kveck]

In article >,
Donald Munro > wrote:

> Donald Munro wrote:
> >> That'll teach you setting up rear derailleurs and drinking belgian brews
> >> aren't compatible.
>
> Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> > Too much, or not enough?
>
> Its all the same.
> Isn't that a lyric from a nineties band - soundgarden or soul asylum
> perhaps.

"Too much is not enough" was the Lewd.

--
tanx,
Howard

Whatever happened to
Leon Trotsky?
He got an icepick
That made his ears burn.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

[Tom Kunich]

"Fred Fredburger" > wrote in message
...
> Tom Kunich wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On Mar 6, 8:14 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The fact is that you burn about the same number of calories fast or
>>>> moderate. When I was racing I was so far above my present caliber that
>>>> I
>>>> could ride what I consider a fast ride now and my heart rate would
>>>> still be
>>>> in zone 2.
>>>
>>> That word. You keep using that word. I do not
>>> think it means what you think it means.
>>
>> Ben, what is the formula for work?
>
> The meaning of "you burn about the same number of calories fast or
> moderate" is ambiguous. Is that per mile or per hour? In the article,
> Dunlap is pretty clearly referring to calories per minute. I think you
> meant per mile.

We're people and people think in distances and not time. You have a 35 mile
ride and if you have time to do a 35 mile ride you do it. Whether you do
that 35 miles fast or slow the calories burned are nearly the same. I say
"nearly" because if you're riding really hard your muscles don't work quite
as efficiently as when you're doing 80% or less. And at 60% or less you're
actually running very efficiently. Not that the difference is much mind you.

[Michael Press]

In article >,
Howard Kveck > wrote:

> In article >,
> Donald Munro > wrote:
>
> > Donald Munro wrote:
> > >> That'll teach you setting up rear derailleurs and drinking belgian brews
> > >> aren't compatible.
> >
> > Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> > > Too much, or not enough?
> >
> > Its all the same.
> > Isn't that a lyric from a nineties band - soundgarden or soul asylum
> > perhaps.
>
> "Too much is not enough" was the Lewd.

It takes dynamite to get me up
Too much of everything is just enough
One more thing I just got to say
I need a miracle every day.
-- John Barlow


"Too much of anything is bad,
but too much of good whiskey
is barely enough."
-- Mark Twain

--
Michael Press

[Ryan Cousineau]

In article >,
Michael Press > wrote:

> In article >,
> Howard Kveck > wrote:
>
> > In article >,
> > Donald Munro > wrote:
> >
> > > Donald Munro wrote:
> > > >> That'll teach you setting up rear derailleurs and drinking belgian
> > > >> brews
> > > >> aren't compatible.
> > >
> > > Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> > > > Too much, or not enough?
> > >
> > > Its all the same.
> > > Isn't that a lyric from a nineties band - soundgarden or soul asylum
> > > perhaps.
> >
> > "Too much is not enough" was the Lewd.
>
> It takes dynamite to get me up
> Too much of everything is just enough
> One more thing I just got to say
> I need a miracle every day.
> -- John Barlow
>
>
> "Too much of anything is bad,
> but too much of good whiskey
> is barely enough."
> -- Mark Twain

No no no! Both were by Benjamin Franklin, a founding father of your
country.

I thought Americans at least knew something about their own history,

--
Ryan Cousineau http://www.wiredcola.com/
"In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls."
"In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."

[Howard Kveck]

In article >,
Michael Press > wrote:

> In article >,
> Howard Kveck > wrote:
>
> > In article >,
> > Donald Munro > wrote:
> >
> > > Donald Munro wrote:
> > > >> That'll teach you setting up rear derailleurs and drinking belgian
> > > >> brews
> > > >> aren't compatible.
> > >
> > > Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> > > > Too much, or not enough?
> > >
> > > Its all the same.
> > > Isn't that a lyric from a nineties band - soundgarden or soul asylum
> > > perhaps.
> >
> > "Too much is not enough" was the Lewd.
>
> It takes dynamite to get me up
> Too much of everything is just enough
> One more thing I just got to say
> I need a miracle every day.
> -- John Barlow
>
>
> "Too much of anything is bad,
> but too much of good whiskey
> is barely enough."
> -- Mark Twain

Excellent...

--
tanx,
Howard

Whatever happened to
Leon Trotsky?
He got an icepick
That made his ears burn.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?